cont'd ...

As for Malcolm Turnbull?

He obviously has decided to remain in Parliament as
a clear alternative to the current leader and Mr
Turnbull is by far a less polarising figure. He's also
widely respected in the business and wider community for
his economic nous, his experience and acumen.

Prime Ministers of Australia all had ambition however in
the past it was accompanied by talent, eloquence,
intelligence and shrewdness. Menzies had towering
intellect. Whitlam had the broad popular appeal of the
conciliator, Bob Hawke was a great communicator.
Each in his own way stood out from the pack. Mr Abbott
has offered little in the way of vision and what he
actually stands for - apart from the Church, the monarchy,
and "aspirations." All he seems to have is sound bites,
slogans, and "look at me" TV pictures on track - but
not any underlying sense of economic competence.
He only won the leadership by one vote. If there's a slide
in the polls - who knows what a nervous party might do.

Grim
The climate models used by the IPCC have not been validated. They do not reflect real world climate behaviour. They cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and are at best speculative. Although anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have continued to increase, there has been no statistically significant increase in atmospheric global temperature since 1998, which is contrary to what the models project.

The supposed climate science experts assert that observed climate changes are anthropogenic, but have not been able to produce the empirical scientific evidence to prove their assertions. They ignore the significance of natural causes of climate change e.g. solar activity, El Nino. Yet they have the gall to claim that climate science is settled, when it is simply not the case.

The fossil fuel statistics you quote are not evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. Furthermore, you appear to mistake CO2 as pollution, when it is in fact an invisible, odourless gas that is necessary for plant life. Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, who has since left the organisation, now states that CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth and admits that it is proven in lab and field experiments that plants would grow much faster if CO2 levels were 4 to 5 times higher in the atmosphere than they are today.

CO2 levels in the air are less than 0.04%. Annually, all human activity produces 3% of Earth's CO2, Nature 97%, 32 times more. Atmospheric residence time for CO2 is only 5 to 7 years, and it is then recycled back into sinks such as plants, oceans and soils

Raycom,
I agree the climate models are as yet incomplete, and are currently not capable of making accurate predictions. This does not make them merely 'speculative', but rather a work in progress.
From my observations, it seems the essential difference between intelligent people and the less intelligent is that intelligent people accept they have limitations.
When an intelligent person comes on to a problem they can't understand, they research. They poke, they prod, they pry... Then they break it down into smaller pieces; bits they can understand. Then they put all the bits they understand together to make a model. The model is then compared to the real item, and if found lacking, they try to add more bits.
Each time more detail is added to the model, their understanding increases, and the model becomes more accurate.
To suggest that highly trained and educated scientists would overlook such factors as sunlight, cloud cover and ocean and air currents when dealing with climate is just nonsense.

OTOH, when an unintelligent person comes across a problem they can't understand, the immediate reaction is: “Well, that can't be right!”

The CO2 argument is infantile at best. It is precisely like saying “water is essential to life; therefore floods can only be a good thing. There's no such thing as a flood catastrophe”.
Primary school kids are (or used to be) taught about the balance between plants and animals.
One puts out CO2 and takes in oxygen, the other takes in CO2 and gives back oxygen.
What is 'natural' about increasing mammalian activity a thousand fold over the last few thousand years (humans and their livestock) while at the same time cutting down 70% of the world's forests?
These actions alone disturb the 'natural' balance.
ON TOP of this, we add 21 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, only about half of which can be processed by 'Nature'.
Not only are CO2 levels still rising, but CO2 production is still growing, and we are still cutting down forests, and our populations (human and animal) are still growing.

Sorry, missed a typo. We have cut down more than 50% of world's forests, not 70%.
Or, perhaps an IPCC conspiracy, to overstate the case?

Interesting article, Tom. As a (rather half-hearted at present) Labor supporter I have been resigning myself to a Coalition victory at the next federal election, while hoping that somehow Turnbull could navigate his way to the Liberal leadership before then. Labor Leadership would be even better, but I fear this is a pipe dream.

Just who is advising Labor these days? Mickey Mouse?

Grim
Your faith in the IPCC's climate models is misplaced. The IPCC's models have been formulated to defend its AGW agenda, which it has been pushing for over 20 years. Sadly, the IPCC fan club includes many supposedly "highly trained and educated scientists". It is a case of political activism brushing aside scientific method.

Given your professed CO2 knowledge, would you be so kind as to table the papers that document the factual scientific evidence that proves the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of dangerous global warming